Sunday, July 12, 2009

Why I'll Probably Never Vote for a Democrat

One of the main differences between liberals and conservatives (by the American definition of those words) is who they fear. Liberals fear unchecked businesses, whereas conservatives tend to fear unchecked government (or at least based on their rhetoric). Here is a video from Zimbabwe, that helps show why I usually side with the conservatives. I challenge you to find an example of a bad business that has done anything remotely as destructive as bad governments (think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and Castro).

5 comments:

  1. Ahhh!!! An unchecked business!! Run for your lives!!!

    Seriously though, I don't think "fear" is the right word to use. Liberals believe in regulating business to protect the people and conservatives believe in limiting government to protect capitalism and a free market. These are differences in beliefs. Not fears.

    Just because a liberal likes the idea of having some corporate regulations does not equate in them in ignoring a government organizing something like the Holocaust. In fact, they'd probably be the first hippies out there protesting the government's actions. Meanwhile, just because conservatives believe in less government, doesn't mean they're not susceptible to bad leadership/government (not just the past 8 years, but seriously, why is the GOP imploding upon itself lately??)

    This is not a fair argument at all. Basically, you're implying that the views of liberals in our country could result in something horrifying and inhumane. American democratic liberal views do not equal communist dictatorships. Dude, we have a democracy. Checks and balances. First amendment. Safe and successful elections every year to change who is in charge. I'm pretty sure none of those things existed in any of those situations you listed, and they certainly did not have the rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen under our democracy.

    And another point, just because an unregulated company polluting a river is "not as bad" as genocide, does not mean we shouldn't do something about it to prevent it from happening. Harmful to innocents is harmful to innocents. Whether you're liberal or conservative. And if the government isn't there to protect those who can't protect themselves, why even have a government?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Careful Cheryl, ask a Libertarian "why even have a government" and you might not like the answer :)

    A few things - though I think you made some great points I think it's ok to label them "fears." I think if you listen to the rhetoric Newt Gingrich or Nancy Pelosi throws out there, you'll find it laden with a lot of fear - fear of our government creating a "socialist" health care system, fear of Bush's deregulation bringing our economy to its knees. Sometimes - even most times - what you fear affects what you believe.

    But I agree, the reductio ad hilterum argument being used here is an oversimplification. One thing I've been thinking a lot about lately, and actually forming a post on, is how Conservatives don't really fear big government as a whole. Sure they want government out of education/welfare/economy/healthcare/etc, but when it comes to the executive they have no problem at all increasing the size of military, the powers of the president, the acceptable tactics to use in wartime. By the same token, the left argues for an extremely limited executive but has no problem creating vastly expensive social programs which create failing public education systems and business crippled by union contracts. Both parties want big/small government, it just depends on which branch.

    If you want to argue these to the extreme, one leads to totalitarianism and the other to socialism (which is how an endearingly eccentric, Constitutionalist professor of mine described the two political parties in the US - the Nazis and the Commies). But like you said, Cheryl - the genius of the checks and balances in our system prevent this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh and by the way, first Democrat I ever voted for - Tommy Moore. Starting to think that was an even better move than I realized...

    ReplyDelete
  4. First off, I love that liberals regulate business to protect people, but conservatives limit government to protect capitalism. Capitalism has no value except for the value it bring people. Liberals and conservatives both want to help people, they just disagree on how to do it.

    "Just because a liberal likes the idea of having some corporate regulations does not equate in them in ignoring a government organizing something like the Holocaust."

    You're right. Bringing Hitler into the conversation only created a straw man (thanks Justin). As I was reading over this post I remember that Hitler and Mussolini were conservatives. I have to remember that attacks on liberty come from both the right and the left. From both Obama and Bush. I think Justin has a good point. Conservative rhetoric even from the "great" Ronald Reagan was hugely flawed. Yes he talked about smart fiscal policy but he created a huge deficit and (as many conservatives do) did not want to allow many social freedoms ("just say no").

    "I'm pretty sure none of those things existed in any of those situations you listed"

    You might want to read about how Hitler came to power: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp (sorry to bring Hitler back up again)

    "just because an unregulated company polluting a river is "not as bad" as genocide, does not mean we shouldn't do something about it"

    Of course you're right, but there is only so much political capital you can spend. And I'll usually fight for lowering tariffs before water pollution.

    "if the government isn't there to protect those who can't protect themselves, why even have a government?"

    Well I guess that's the root difference of our belief (as Justin suggested). I don't think the role of the government is to help the disenfranchised. I think it is to protect all citizens rights to life, liberty and property.

    At the end of the day this post just pushes me farther to the political fringe. My hope is that I take a few of you with me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please remember liberals as well as conservatives want to protect all citizens rights to life, liberty and property. These are very broad ideas. What is and what is not life/liberty/property are widely disagreed upon. I'm sure you, Cheryl, and me would all say we want to protect these things, though we span the political spectrum ideologically. By the same token, I think you would say you generally want to help the disenfranchised - but you would argue the way to do that is to get gov't off their backs, while Cheryl might say it's to allow gov't to lend them a hand.

    Good point about Hitler/Mussolini being conservatives. I think you would agree warped conservatisim - an overemphasis on authority - lends itself to totalitariansm.

    I'm not sure how "just say no" limits personal freedom. In fact, I would think a non-intrusive PR campaign would be just the "non-liberty-limiting" method for government trying to discourage drug use/violence/premarital sex you would prefer. I would think you would like that a whole lot more than legislation. Not only that, there's evidence it worked. (of course, all my info is from Wikipedia, so...) Maybe your argument is gov't has no place spending money trying to encourage kids not to do drugs. Indirectly I guess this could limit freedom by taxing people to pay for it... but still, that seems like a stretch to me.

    Have fun on the fringe!

    ReplyDelete

You are the reason why I do not write privately. I would love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not.